[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] ebxml

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "opensource@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opensource@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 20:17:59 +0100
Message-id: <478D06E7.4010702@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> And the reason why this is important in the Ontolog Forum is that the 
> vocabularies -- the "ontologies" -- are critical to being able to 
> discuss that state with a partner organization who has a somewhat 
> different view.
This is certainly an important area. I personally like to add the work 
OMG doing to the a list of important efforts.
Im sitting just now and is incorporating OMG Semantics of Business 
Vocabularies and Business Rules in a national handbook. This with links 
to WS-Policy and XACML, works rather nice.    (01)

> At least the current Core Components activity is directed toward solving 
> one of the critical problems -- the common vocabulary.  And the approach 
> is interesting -- the "standard lower ontology" from which higher 
> concepts are built.  That said, I think much more of that effort is also 
> being spent on technical details than semantics.  "You can take the boy 
> out of the country, but you can't take the country out of the boy."
In my opinion Its a fair assessment that the CCTS work is tilted toward 
technologies consideration and not sufficiently business. The latest 
proposals I have seen regarding business level datatyping is rather 
mixing functional requirements with technical XML solutions. Im not sure 
why a business user should be required to specify a "hexadecimal" amount..    (02)

/anders    (03)

Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (04)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>